Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals and of the wider scientific community. The Royal Society of Chemistry established a minimum set of requirements aimed at improving EDI in scholarly publishing. Additionally, several resources were reported to have the potential to improve EDI, but their effectiveness and feasibility are yet to be determined. In this commentary we suggest six approaches, based on the Royal Society of Chemistry set of requirements, that journals could implement to improve EDI. They are: (1) adopt a journal EDI statement with clear, actionable steps to achieve it; (2) promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language; (3) appoint a journal’s EDI director or lead; (4) establish a EDI mentoring approach; (5) monitor adherence to EDI principles; and (6) publish reports on EDI actions and achievements. We also provide examples of journals that have implemented some of these strategies, and discuss the roles of peer reviewers, authors, researchers, academic institutes, and funders in improving EDI.

Related collections

Most cited references 55

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

Shirin Heidari, Thomas F. Babor, Paola De Castro … (2016)

Background Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of research findings and their applicability to clinical practice, in particular for women but also for men. This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. Methods A panel of 13 experts representing nine countries developed the guidelines through a series of teleconferences, conference presentations and a 2-day workshop. An internet survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community was conducted as well as a literature search on sex and gender policies in scientific publishing. Results The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings. Conclusions The SAGER guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.

0 comments Cited 403 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis

Sumi Cho, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Leslie McCall (2013)

0 comments Cited 369 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Bas Hofstra, Vivek V. Kulkarni, Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez … (2020)

Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.

0 comments Cited 279 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Omar Dewidar:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6420-887X

Odewi090@uottawa.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Res Integr Peer Rev

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Res Integr Peer Rev

Title: Research Integrity and Peer Review

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 2058-8615

Publication date (Electronic): 4 July 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 4 July 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: 4

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.28046.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, Bruyere Research Institute, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada

[2 ]GRID grid.28046.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada

[3 ]GRID grid.28046.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada

Author information

Omar Dewidar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6420-887X

Article

Publisher ID: 123

DOI: 10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z

PMC ID: 9251949

PubMed ID: 35786782

SO-VID: d0b746b0-8b01-4eb8-9d22-c0cca944e4e7

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 20 January 2022

Date accepted : 26 May 2022

Custom metadata

Keywords: equity,diversity,inclusion,research integrity,journal policies,editorial bias

Data availability:

Keywords: equity, diversity, inclusion, research integrity, journal policies, editorial bias

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Emerald: Fairer Society

Most cited references 55

Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis

The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 127

Cited by 12

Most referenced authors 597